coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant, Ms Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Budapest.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  In 1950 the applicant married Mr Tibor Ipoly Daróczy. According to birth certificate no. 1786/1927 Mr Daróczy was entitled to bear the two above-mentioned forenames from the very moment of his birth.[1] Her husband signed the marriage certificate as “Tibor Daróczy”. The applicant chose to bear her husband’s name by putting the suffix “-né” referring to the marriage (házasságra utaló toldás) after the first given name (Tibor) of her husband. In accordance with the widespread custom in Hungary, the latter only used his first given name even in official contexts. The applicant’s married name was registered as Tiborné Daróczy on the marriage certificate.
8.  The official before whom the marriage took place did not observe that the name chosen was against the law since, at the material time, a woman could only choose to bear the whole name of her husband, including all the given names. In the present case, the applicant’s correct married name should have been Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy.
9.  The mistake was not revealed in 1954 when identity cards were introduced in Hungary. The applicant’s renewed identity card issued in 1974 also contained the name Tiborné Daróczy. The applicant used this name in all official and private business. In particular, her social security card and tax identification certificate were issued in the name Tiborné Daróczy.
10.  In 1984 Hungary introduced electronic data recording. In the new State Registry (Állami Népességnyilvántartó) the applicant’s name was automatically entered in the manner prescribed by law, as Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy. However, she did not receive any official notification of this fact. In 1994 she and her husband were entered on the electoral register (választói névjegyzék) under the names Tibor Daróczy and Tiborné Daróczy. This database relied on the general State Registry.
11.  In 1996 the applicant’s husband died. The applicant then used the name Tiborné Daróczy with the prefix “özv.” indicating that she was a widow.
12.  In 2004 the applicant lost her identity card. Based on the State Registry, the Registry Office issued a new card which indicated her name as the widow of Tibor Ipoly Daróczy (özv. Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy). On 13 January 2005 the applicant obtained an official certificate containing this name. The certificate’s only function was to enable her to access her bank account since her new identity card contained a name that was different from the one she had used when opening the account. The text of the certificate expressly stated that it had been issued for one-time use.
13.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of the Interior, seeking permission to bear the name Tiborné Daróczy. In November 2004 the Ministry informed her that, since her husband’s official name was Tibor Ipoly Daróczy, she was entitled and obliged to bear that name in its entirety as a widow, and that it was not possible to change it to another form. Her name is at present registered as Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy.
5.  On 15 November 2002 Flux published an article entitled “The criminal case file of Eugenia Duca, like five kilograms of waste paper”. It reported on the evolution of a high-profile criminal case against a business woman, who was convicted at the time but was later acquitted and compensated for illegal prosecution and detention, and published in italicised script extracts from an open letter sent by her daughter to the President of the country, President of the Parliament, Prime Minister, Council of Europe, OSCE Mission in Moldova and other organisations. In the letter she complained of alleged abuses committed by the prosecution and by the judiciary against her mother. The letter contained, inter alia, the following sentence:
“On 10 July 2001, the Deputy Prosecutor General V.S. (subsequently dismissed for dubious affairs), signed the indictment in Eugenia Duca’s criminal case... and sent it to the Râşcani District Court without her even having seen it.”
6.  On an unspecified date Mr V.S., who in the meantime was demoted, brought civil proceedings for defamation against the newspaper, arguing that the statement about his dismissal for dubious affairs was not true and that it was defamatory of him.
7.  On 12 February 2003 the Buiucani District Court ruled in favour of Mr V.S., finding the statement that Mr V.S. had been dismissed for dubious affairs to be untrue and defamatory. It also found that V.S. was employed at the time at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Appeal and ordered the newspaper to issue an apology within fifteen days and pay V.S. 2,700 Moldovan lei (178 euros (EUR)).
8.  The applicant newspaper appealed against this judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the article was in fact a dissemination of statements made by Ms Duca’s daughter in her open letter. Relying on Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, the applicant newspaper argued that it could not be punished for disseminating statements made by third parties.
9.  On 29 April 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. It did not examine the arguments advanced by the applicant newspaper concerning the dissemination of statements made by others. The applicant newspaper lodged an appeal on points of law and submitted that the expression “dubious affairs” had been a value judgment.
10.  On 19 November 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that Mr V.S. had been dismissed from his position by a decision of the Parliament without any reasons being given. It did not examine the applicant newspaper’s arguments about the dissemination of statements made by a third person.
4.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1953, 1953 and 1953 respectively and live in Łódź.
5.  On 7 December 2001 the Consumer Protection Association (Związek Obrony Konsumentów) acting on behalf of the applicants lodged a claim for payment with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
6.  In a letter of 22 May 2003 the applicants’ legal adviser complained about the delay in the proceedings and asked for a hearing date to be fixed.
7.  On 15 December 2003 the court held the first hearing.
8.  From January to March 2003 the court held 2 hearings.
9.  On 10 February 2004 the Warszawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared the defendant insolvent. Consequently, at a hearing held on 4 March 2004 the trial court stayed the proceedings ex lege.
10.  The proceedings were resumed on 9 May 2007.
11.  On 11 May 2007 the Warszawa Regional Court discontinued the proceedings in the case.
12.  On 4 February 2005 the Consumer Protection Association acting on behalf of the applicants lodged a complaint with the Warszawa Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
13.  The applicants sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warszawa Regional Court had been excessive. They asked for an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).
14.  On 15 March 2005 the Warszawa Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court found that the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of entry into force (17 September 2004), its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied. It acknowledged that there had been a delay at the initial stage of the proceedings but found that this situation had ceased to exist when the 2004 Act entered into force.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Novoaltaysk, a town in the Altay Region.
5.  The applicant brought three civil actions against the Government and Ministry of Finance seeking to liquidate Soviet commodity bonds and saving certiﬁcates.
6.  On 10 August 2001 the Novoaltaysk Town Court awarded the applicant 227,540 Russian roubles (“RUB”). This judgment became binding on 24 October 2001, but was not enforced.
7.  On 25 December 2001 the town court awarded the applicant RUB 347,406. This judgment became binding on 24 April 2002, and was enforced on 20 September 2007.
8.  On 25 December 2001 the town court awarded the applicant RUB 168,944.21. This judgment became binding on 24 April 2002. On 7 December 2004 it was quashed in supervisory-review proceedings. Nevertheless, on 2 June 2006 the sum due was by mistake paid to the applicant. The Ministry of Finance sought to recover the mistakenly paid sum, but on 14 November 2007 the Altay Regional Court decided that the applicant could keep the money as compensation for the judgment’s lengthy non-enforcement.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Peshtera.
5.  On 11 January 1990 the Pleven district public prosecutor’s office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant for theft, embezzlement and other offences allegedly committed in 1989 and the beginning of 1990. On an unspecified date the applicant was formally charged.
6.  At a later date the case was transferred to the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office.
7.  Subsequently, the scope of the investigation was widened to include thefts and other offences allegedly committed by the applicant after January 1990.
8.  On an unspecified date it was established that almost the entire case file, which had consisted of thirty-two volumes, had been lost. Efforts were made to reconstruct the case file as far as possible.
9.  On 9 April 1999 the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office terminated the investigation on unknown grounds.
10.  That decision was quashed by the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office on 8 July 1999.
11.  The decision of 8 July 1999 also contained instructions to the investigator as to the necessary investigative steps.
12.  Between 1999 and 2002 the investigator examined several witnesses and commissioned an expert opinion by an economist to establish the value of the chattels allegedly stolen or appropriated by the applicant.
13.  On 11 April 2005 the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office terminated the proceedings on the ground that the prosecution of most of the offences was time-barred and that it had not been established that the applicant had committed the remaining offences.
14.  In connection to these and other proceedings, the applicant was in pre-trial detention or in prison between May 1991 and August 1993, between 25 November and 7 December 1993 and between May 1994 and an unspecified date in 2002, 2003 or 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Astrakhan.
5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to social beneﬁts. As the authorities had failed to provide the beneﬁts in full, the applicant brought four civil actions.
6.  On 3 June 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan awarded the applicant arrears, ﬁxed a new amount of periodic payments, and ordered that in future this amount should be adjusted for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 1 August 2003, and was enforced in September–October 2003.
7.  On 3 June 2004 the district court awarded the applicant arrears. This judgment became binding on 20 August 2004, and was enforced in January–July 2005.
8.  On 30 August 2004 the district court ordered a local authority to provide the applicant with a decent at. This judgment became binding on 28 September 2004. From November 2004 to May 2005 the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending supervisory-review proceedings requested by the local authority. In October 2005 the local authority offered the applicant a at, but he refused it considering it too small to house his family. On a bailiff’s request, on 7 February 2006 the district court speciﬁed that the at was not meant for the applicant’s family members. In July 2006 the local authority offered the applicant another at, and on 28 September 2006 he accepted it.
9.  On 24 October 2005 the district court awarded the applicant arrears and upgraded periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 7 November 2005, and was partly enforced in December 2005. In March–April 2006 the bailiff twice returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant, because the judgment had to be executed by the social authority directly. On the applicant’s request, on 6 February 2007 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review and ordered a rehearing.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Rab.
5.  While working with a circular saw on 16 May 1994 the applicant sustained an injury in the workplace resulting in the loss of two fingers. The injuries were of such a degree that on 29 March 1995 the applicant had to retire and was awarded a disability pension.
6.  On 22 September 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the company, S., in the Rab Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rabu) seeking damages in connection with the above accident. The applicant subsequently designated company J. as the respondent because he considered it to be the legal successor of company S., which had gone bankrupt and had been erased from the companies’ register in 1996.
7.  In a judgment of 15 May 2000 the Rab Municipal Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the Rijeka Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Rijeci). The applicant appealed and on 4 October 2000 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) quashed the first-instance decision and referred the case to the Crikvenica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Crikvenici) as the competent court.
8.  On 25 October 2002 the Crikvenica Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The judgment was quashed upon an appeal lodged by the applicant on 29 January 2003 by the Rijeka County Court and the case was remitted to the court of first instance.
9.  Meanwhile, on 28 March 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 13 April 2005 the Constitutional Court found a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 5,200 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Crikvenica Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than twelve months following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court’s decision was published on 2 May 2005.
10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 10 February 2006 the Crikvenica Municipal Court again gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant again appealed and on 5 July 2006 the Rijeka County Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.
11.  On 5 September 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 21 February 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Shakhty, a town in Rostov Region.
5.  In 1998–2001 the applicant’s father obtained seven judgment debts against his employer OAO Rostovugol, a joint-stock company managing coal mines in the Rostov Region. To enforce the judgments, bailiffs attached the company’s bank accounts, means of transport, and property, and audited the company’s cashow.
6.  On 12 March 2002 the company’s shareholders voted for the company’s liquidation.
7.  On 8 October 2002, the applicant’s father died, having signed away the judgment debts to the applicant. On 1 December 2003 the Shakhty Town Court acknowledged the applicant as a beneﬁciary of the judgment debts. This judgment became binding on 11 December 2003. Five judgment debts were paid on 6 April 2004, and two on 17 February 2005
8.  On 9 March 2005 the company was declared bankrupt.
5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Cambridgeshire.
6.  His wife died on 6 May 1997 leaving four children, the last born in 1987.
7.  On 25 June 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). He was informed on 29 June 2000 that the Benefits Agency was unable to accept his application as a valid claim because there was at that time no legislation providing an equivalent of the widows’ benefits concerned to widowers. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision maker.
8.  On 1 October 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance to the Inland Revenue for the years 1997‑1999. On 20 October 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.
9.  The applicant received child benefit in the sum of GBP 150.20 per month.
5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Leeds.
6.  His wife died on 19 March 1997. The couple had two children, born in 1981 and 1984 respectively.
7.  In May 2000 the applicant enquired about widow’s benefits. On 17 May 2000 the Benefits Agency informed him that there was at that time no legislation providing an equivalent of the widows’ benefits concerned to widowers. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision-maker.
8.  On 19 May 2000 the applicant asked for the matter to be considered by a decision-maker.
9.  On 20 May 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment, a Widowed Mother’s Allowance and thereafter a Widow’s Pension, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). On 26 May 2000 the benefits agency refused the applicant’s claim because he was not a woman, but informed him that he was entitled to appeal.
10.  On 11 June 2000 the applicant appealed. On 15 June 2000 the decision maker reconsidered the decision and upheld the previous decision. The applicant appealed this decision. On 27 September 2000 the Social Security Appeals Service dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
11.  On 6 October 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue for the years 1996-1998. On 25 October 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.
12.  The applicant received child benefit in the sum of GBP 70.20 per month.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Essex.
5.  His wife died on 27 February 2000 having no children.
6.  On around 4 April 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a Widow’s Pension, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). He was informed on 25 April 2000 that the Benefits Agency was unable to accept his application as a valid claim because there was at that time no legislation providing an equivalent of the widows’ benefits concerned to widowers. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision-maker.
7.  In or around September 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue for the years 2000-2001. On 5 October 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.
8.  On 24 November 2000 the applicant re-applied for WBA and on 28 November 2000 the Inland Revenue replied confirming its decision and asking the applicant if he wished to appeal.
9.  On 30 November 2000 the applicant made a further claim for WBA which was rejected on 25 December 2000.
10.  On 3 January 2001 the applicant wrote to the Inland Revenue asking for his appeal claim to be left open pending a domestic decision on the matter.
11.  The applicant received incapacity benefit in the sum of GBP 240.80 per month.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kastav.
5.  On 1 July 1997 a certain N.K. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) seeking the division of jointly owned property. The court held six hearings, heard evidence from two witnesses and on 2 December 1999 dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the applicant. A subsequent appeal by the plaintiff
was forwarded to the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) on 13 March 2000.
6.  In the appellate proceedings the applicant lodged a request for the case to be transferred to another court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4 June 2003; a request for the President of the Rijeka County Court to stand down, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13 October 2003 and a request for the presiding judge to stand down, which was dismissed by the President of the Rijeka County Court on 9 January 2004. The Government submitted that all three requests were unsubstantiated.
7.  On 28 January 2004 the Rijeka County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh examinations. In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held hearings on 27 May and 6 July 2004 and scheduled an on-site inspection which was not carried out owing to the plaintiff’s refusal to admit the assigned expert onto his property.
8.  According to the Government, from 2004 to 2006 the applicant failed to collect mail sent to him by the Municipal Court. This caused the adjournment of hearings scheduled for 9 May, 6 September and 24 October 2006.
9.  The Government further submitted that in the period between 2004 and 2006 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of numerous counts of fraud, threatening behaviour and usury. About fifteen hearings had been adjourned since the applicant had failed to collect the court summons.
10.  Meanwhile, on 17 July 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 17 November 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed his complaint as ill-founded, finding that the proceedings were relatively complex and that the applicant had contributed to the delays by failing to appear at three hearings in 1998.
11.  The case is at present pending before the Municipal Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Veszprém-Kádárta.
5.  In the context of an inquiry, the Bács-Kiskun County Directorate of the Hungarian Tax Authority established that the applicant had failed to pay 2,339,604 Hungarian Forints (approximately 9,167 euros). It ordered him to pay the outstanding tax plus a fine of HUF 1,119,000 (approximately 4,384 euros) and HUF 1,948,000 (approximately 7,771 euros) in accrued interest.
6.  The applicant appealed. On 10 August 1998 the National Tax Authority upheld the first-instance administrative decision. It found that the applicant had received, on a regular basis, sums from a private company for his work but he had failed to pay taxes on this income. The Tax Authority relied on documentary evidence.
7.  In September 1998 the applicant sought judicial review of the final administrative decision before the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court.
8.  On 28 November 2002 the Regional Court found, after having held seven hearings, that the Tax Authority had acted in compliance with the law and dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed.
9.  The Budapest Court of Appeal, after having held two hearings, upheld the first-instance decision on 22 September 2004. The courts relied on documentary evidence and the testimony of the parties.